3 ms·
Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2". Why is every standards body seemingl
by joshstrange 4y ago
Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2".
Why is every standards body seemingly incapable of sane naming? The same thing just happened with WiFi semi-recently.
"WiFi 6": Oh thankfully we have sane naming after years of B/G/AC/AX/etc
"WiFi 6E": WTF were they thinking?
- luckman212 4y agoMust be the same committee who came up with the various PoE standards. 802.11af, 802.11at, 802.3bt... PoE, PoE+, PoE++...
- hooverd 4y agoPoE# next?
- hulitu 4y agoPOE11. Without connector /s
- benttoothpaste 4y agoPOE++11 will be the most important POE update since POE++98. In fact it will feel as a completely new POE.
- kosma 4y agoAn organization grows to a size where decisions are made by committee, bikeshedding is rampart, and one idiot in marketing can dismiss and derail the naming suggestions of an entire engineering team.
- Gigachad 4y agoPart of the reason is that USB isn’t one linear timeline of newer versions. There are so many optional features that you are really naming a branched tree of USB specs. But even then they seem to have done a particularly bad job.
- JohnFen 4y agoIsn't this state of things a failure in the "universal" part of USB? What we have now is a bunch of different types of serial busses that all happen to use one of a handful of different connectors. Even if we ignore everything but the USB-C connector, we have a bunch of different types of serial busses that all use the same connector.